Reply to: Capita CL1 government contract - should I take it

[new2c]

Really useful responses..Thank you All.

I can get the contract reviewed by Qdos or B&C.

But, how do I get the "working practices" reviewed or signed-off?

I guess, these have to be signed-off by the end client and not the agency I am dealing with? Is this correct?

Is there a document to be signed for "working practices", is there a template?

[DaveB]

Client asked for proof that I was outside. Working practises signed off by client and contact review submitted satisfied their internal processes.

This is the usual process.

Client departments don't have the time or understanding to make detailed decisions about this, they just want to cover their own backs.

The original CL1 based contracts direct with Capita were awful and hundreds of contractors across government refused to sign them. As a result they were revised with input from IPSE and should now be acceptable. Where you contract through another agency, who contracts with Capita under CL1 it's your contract with the agency and working practices you need to worry about, as with any contract.

A contract review that shows you as outside and agreed working practices are all thats needed. Provided your contract isn't awful it should not be a big deal to get it sorted.

Essentially it's an extra hoop to jump through for public sector contracts and not something you should be overly concerned with, IMO. Just get the review done and the working practices agreed and carry on. It's what you should be doing for all contracts anyway.

[TheLordDave]

So, it was the client who asked for a contract review from Qdos OR was it Capita who asked for it?




Sorry, I did not get this one - what is meant by being flexible? Is this regarding the working hours. I was told in the interview that I can start between 7 am and 11 am and then do an 8 hour day. So, by being flexible can help contractor in avoiding IR35?




The rate is not very high, actually less then my previous contract. And I am in Buckinghamshire and this is in Wales.

Not sure what to do.

Client asked for proof that I was outside. Working practises signed off by client and contact review submitted satisfied their internal processes.

[TheLordDave]

I would avoid it if the rates are low mainly due to the crapita hassle. For me the rate was sufficiently high 50% more than other contracts in the area to be worth the risk.

Both my contract and working practises are outside ir35. That's about the best you can do, other than avoiding public sector work. But for me a contract that has the scope for 2 years worth of work, close to home, with a high rate makes is worth taking a punt.

[jamesbrown]

As my original post said, penalties may be 100%.

The first link you provided say this "If you’re found to be within IR35 following an HMRC enquiry, you must pay HMRC the tax and National Insurance contributions due, as well as any interest due on these amounts..

If you have beem 'economical' with the truth providing info for the IR35 professional review to get a pass including working conditions, you're likely to fall foul of 'reasonable care.'

If you want to believe there's no FUD on behalf of IR35 by HMRC, then good for you. Dont come crying here when you do get stiffed though.

Which part of this didn't you understand?

Interest would be due, but look at the success rate of investigations FFS.

You read somewhere that the penalties "could be up to 100%", but you knew nothing about the circumstances under which they applied. Hint: how many IR35 cases have been lost and penalties incurred?

Personally, I'd avoid public sector work because the rates are low and the hassle is high, including the increased risk of scrutiny for IR35, but certainly not because of the penalty regime. Having a professional contract review is a prerequisite, regardless of whether you're looking for public or private sector work. Given that, why on earth would you fabricate anything?; you may as well provide a fake contract FFS (or save the money and not bother with a review).

[BolshieBastard]

https://www.gov.uk/ir35-enquiry-by-h...-and-sanctions

and

'Reasonable care' with IR35 to cost contractors :: Contractor UK

The penalty regime is based on behavior and, specifically, whether "reasonable care" has been taken, i.e. a professional review of the contract and working practices.

As my original post said, penalties may be 100%.

The first link you provided say this "If you’re found to be within IR35 following an HMRC enquiry, you must pay HMRC the tax and National Insurance contributions due, as well as any interest due on these amounts..

If you have beem 'economical' with the truth providing info for the IR35 professional review to get a pass including working conditions, you're likely to fall foul of 'reasonable care.'

If you want to believe there's no FUD on behalf of IR35 by HMRC, then good for you. Dont come crying here when you do get stiffed though.

[jamesbrown]

No they are not.

https://www.gov.uk/ir35-enquiry-by-h...-and-sanctions

and

'Reasonable care' with IR35 to cost contractors :: Contractor UK

The penalty regime is based on behavior and, specifically, whether "reasonable care" has been taken, i.e. a professional review of the contract and working practices.

[BolshieBastard]

Nonsense. They are only 100% in the most egregious cases where the contractor knew they were inside, ignored this, and furthermore concealed it. No penalties are due if reasonable care is taken, and a professional review demonstrates reasonable care. Interest would be due, but look at the success rate of investigations FFS. None of this undermines the need for due diligence and record keeping, but your assertions about penalties are simply wrong.

No they are not.

[new2c]

In the main yes, and also Cr@pita.

Are you dealing with Capita directly, or is there an agency involved?

[SlipTheJab]

Is it due to high risk of IR35 or something else?

In the main yes, and also Cr@pita.

[new2c]

I avoid public sector contracts like the plague, just nor worth the hassle IMO.

Is it due to high risk of IR35 or something else?

[SlipTheJab]

I avoid public sector contracts like the plague, just nor worth the hassle IMO.

[new2c]

Did they ask you to fill in the BETs?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...completed.html

Yes, they did ask me to fill in the BET and sign the declaration based on the score obtained in the BET.

Also, they have a HMRC due diligence document which I have not filled in yet, but am told that I will need to fill it in within a week of starting.

[Sausage Surprise]

I finished the previous contract on 31 March, and have been on bench since then. Last year I has 3 offers to choose from but this year still nothing.

The only contract I have managed to bag is with a government agency in wales and although there is a recruitment agency involved who are dealing with me, the client only deals with capita who then deal with the recruitment agency and who then deal with me.

I have never done a govt. contract before, but the amount if paperwork sent me was just too much, there was a BET document, HMRC due diligence checklist, disclosure scotland, certified copy of passport, and some other declarations to sign. Capita are due to raise a work order (don't know what that is) and then the agency will send me their contract.

I remember reading here that people generally avoid govt contracts due to the hassle involved and high risk of IR35.

I am not sure if there is a high risk of IR35, am I getting into something which will prove difficult later on?

I have found this link:
How to handle Contingent Labour One contracts :: Contractor UK


The problem is, this is the only contract I have managed to find so far, not sure if I should go for it or not.

Did they ask you to fill in the BETs?

http://forums.contractoruk.com/busin...completed.html

[jamesbrown]

Spectacularly misses the point.

You've had a review and deemed outside IR35. However, if hmrc investigate and disagree with the review decision (because the reviewer can only go on what you tell them about the role and conditions), and it goes to a tribunal who agree with hmrc that you're caught, the rate wont be 'sufficiently high enough' because not only will you have to pay taxes under IR35, you'll also be in line for penalties and possibly interest on top for declaring yourself outside, albeit after review.

The penalties can be 100% of the tax due.

Personally I wouldnt touch a government contract even if it was at double my normal rate.

Nonsense. They are only 100% in the most egregious cases where the contractor knew they were inside, ignored this, and furthermore concealed it. No penalties are due if reasonable care is taken, and a professional review demonstrates reasonable care. Interest would be due, but look at the success rate of investigations FFS. None of this undermines the need for due diligence and record keeping, but your assertions about penalties are simply wrong.